Comments on: Obama Abandons the Democracy Agenda

By: potan

potan — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 18:32:22 +0000

I knew Obama abandoned any real commitment to human rights and democracy when he appointed Hindu extremist Sonal Shah to his cabinet. Sonal Shah has connection to fascist organizations such as VHP, Bajrang Dal, and the RSS back in India.

By: czesco

czesco — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 05:12:06 +0000

I was against the policy from the beginning because it disregarded the fact that the basis of democracy is the rule of law. In societies where there is no tradition of the absolute rule of law and no independent judiciary it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for democracy to take hold. Also, it seems to me that destabilizing the Middle East is not the wisest decision in terms of foreign policy goals or the best use of the US’s financial and military resources.

By: chinagreenelvis

chinagreenelvis — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:47:29 +0000

THIS… IS… SPARTA!

By: Reason60

Reason60 — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:24:15 +0000

I am wondering why “undermining” authoritarian regimes is considered a good thing. The thought of Saudi Arabia being overthrown by God-knows-what should send chills up the spine of any rational person.
The proponents of foreign interventionism always have a ready answer, pointing out that there could be some benefit to America if this regime or that government is changed. They never stop to consider the awful cost in America lives, trillions of dollars, and having our security and interests sucked into a black hole of foreign intrigue and Byzantine politicking in places where we have no knowledge whatsoever.
They seem to take for granted our power, seeing the military and CIA as being magic machines that can produce any good result, anywhere we want, with no cost or blowback whatsoever.
It is odd that Glenn Greenwald and Pat Buchanan are on the same page with regard to this, that it is precisely our foreign interventions that have undermined our security, that have provoked the worst attacks on us. 9/11 was plotted by the very man who we armed and assisted, in an intrigue designed to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan 20 years previous.

In 20 years time, what will become of the Sunni militants in Iran who are our current allies? How will Karzai, “Our man in Kabul” end up?

This is madness.

By: Moderate

Moderate — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:28:17 +0000

You guys are mentioning destabilization as if that was an unintended consequence of the neoconservative’s meddling and “democracy” agenda.

Destabilization is the goal.

By: sdm

sdm — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:14:55 +0000

It’s tough to get much traction when the premise on which you base your arguments is faulty.

The so-called Bush democracy initiative was at point of gun, Iraq being the perfect example. Furthermore, democracy as defined by the initiative fell comfily inside neocon parameters.

And your sense of timing is exquisite since your post appears hard on the heels of that John Kerry negotiating a new presidential election in Afghanistan. Now that is democracy building.

By: LFC

LFC — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 15:02:49 +0000

balconesfault said… After all – pushing democratization worked so well for US interests in Palestine and Lebanon, right?

“No fair! How dare you bring up actual facts and history that show our approach to foreign policy produced failure after failure, and in fact caused further destabilization. If you just follow our suggestions for the next hundred years, THEN you’ll see!”

– The Neocons

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:06:12 +0000

………Puhleeeeze……The US has been in full retreat from this nonsense since the start of Bush’s second term……check out Egypt, Jordan, Saudia Arabia, the UAE……I’m sure this sort of piffle will excite the true believers but for anyone with a dimes worth of knowledge it’s absurd and ultimately jsut discredit Republicanism…….this is just not a serious party anymore

By: balconesfault

balconesfault — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:54:39 +0000

I am entertained by seeing this site promote Kamal al-Fayoumi simply as “an activist jailed by the government last year”.

Yet the article linked to identifies al-Fayoumi as “a labor leader who was jailed by the government for launching a major strike last year.”

Is “New Majority” now going to be championing workers rebellions around the world that strike at the governments of some of our geopolitical allies in the GWOT?

Funny enough, I have the feeling that were Obama actively supporting al-Fayoumi, we’d be seeing articles about Obama abandoning our strategic partners in one of the countries universally recognized as having a very large militant muslim population.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200410130824.asp

After all – pushing democratization worked so well for US interests in Palestine and Lebanon, right? And nobody should forget that the losers in the Iranian election – fraud or no – were no friends of the US, and had made no committment to stopping Iran’s nuclear program. And democratization of Iraq looks likely to produce a government much more sympathetic to Iranian interests than Saddam would have ever been.

While we’re at it, let’s push for a Saudi democracy movement. That should really further US strategic interests in the region!

By: Derek

Derek — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 13:20:14 +0000

It is nice to see the right promoting such an idealistic foreign policy. They are the hippies of the new century, even coming to the aid of the “liberals” in Turkey. It’s as if they are to the left of Obama, when it comes to foreign policy. They are the leaders of idealistic missions, around the planet. Missions that are not colored by considerations of national interest.

Meanwhile, back here in NA they say liberalism is evil. It is liberals they are attacking, for not protecting liberals.

If they are willing to go to the left of Obama on foreign policy, why not outflank him on health care as well? God knows there is a huge vacuum to the left of Obama on health care.